Virginia schools expand sexual education

I think this is a very interesting debate between the need to educate kids fully on the health risks of being sexually active (despite their preferences), and the fear of psychological "damage" as a result of teaching mature subjects to developing minds.

As it stands, sexual education in America only covers heterosexual, "natural" intercourse between an unrelated male and female cissexual couple, including basic anatomy, pregnancy/birth control, STDs, and rape prevention.

Virginia state is setting out to change this to include more mandatory subjects in the curriculum, namely anal and oral sex, incest, and transsexual topics. Their goal was stated to be fair and complete education for children of all orientations, so all may know the risks of their own preferred sexual experiences, without being mislead into thinking "I'm gay, accidental pregnancy isn't an issue, no need to protect myself".

The problem is that a community of parents are rising up against the changes. The religious community protests sacrilege, homophobics protest brain washing, while generally concerned parents protest potentially damaging or otherwise influencing young minds with mature topics.

In my opinion, the more rational populace sees this as a way to curb idiotic gay kids from spreading diseases through unprotected sex because they were taught if it's not a dick in a vagina, there's no problem. I see this as treating a health issue in America. AIDS is a very serious problem in the gay community, and any amount of education early on may help in preventing stupid mistakes. What do you think

 

Is it for highschool?

I'm sort of indifferent towards this. On one hand I'm all for informing kids on the dangers of intercourse, but on the other I'm not in favor of forcibly briefing nonessential subject matter. As crazy as brainwashing sounds, it's a valid point.

 

It will teach the dangers/complications of incest in 4th grade, and include anal and oral sex in the curriculum in 8th grade

 

Well then...

The younger the child, the easier it is for them to mischaracterize what they were taught. This is why I don't think It's safe to teach kids, especially those of a very young age, sensitive subject matter.

Anal in the 8th grade? Jesus Christ

 

They're taught basic anatomy and genetics, and much like STDs go hand in hand with sex talk, why shouldn't incest be taught in tandem with basic genetics and sexual anatomy? How do you even correctly characterize incest, I guess I'm confused on your point.

If they teach vaginal, why not anal? As the reports say, anal will be included in the curriculum, that will most likely mean that all warnings concerning STDs still apply for anal, and some still apply for oral. It's important to make the distinction on what will potentially transmit STDs, what causes pregnancy specifically, and the health concerns with everything involved. Also, by 8th grade, many kids have already explored their sexuality, whether through porn or through experiments with friends or "girl/boyfriends". It's the best time to give sex ed on the subject of fornication. Including a more in-depth education better prepares kids to make safer choices in life.

Another thing to note is that we are trending along a frankly destructive "spare the kids" kick in the recent decades. We withhold more and more information because we think kids are too young, too impressionable, too malleable to learn these mature subjects... and so kids are left thinking the woman's vagina is just piss holes that you put a dick into, left thinking that anal is safe because there's no possibility of pregnancy, that parents can afford anything because no one wants to influence them into poor financial decisions by teaching them about credit, that math sucks because they're only taught the most basic, boring and rudimentary forms of math, where they're left wondering where they'll ever need to know this, etc and so forth. There's a reason children experience puberty at the age they do, and letting them learn everything for themselves is the quickest way to spreading STDs or childhood pregnancies. I'm not saying there's a huge problem of it, but whatever we can do to prevent it, why not?

You also need to realize, whatever you have in your mind about gay/lesbian orientations or strange kinks or whatever specific subject about sexuality will probably not make it into the curriculum. Their intention isn't to present the idea of homosexuality, it's to educate them on the fact that anal and oral sex carry many of the same responsibilities and dangers of vaginal sex, and they should ALWAYS be safe, no matter the ways or means.

 

How would you go about describing the obvious wrongdoing of incest without saying more than you need to?

For example, if you use google's definition of incest you get this.

"sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other."

If you break this down to a pg rating, what are you left with? Probably the obvious which is usually self taught.

Now what is the problem? Well you've created a gateway. Curiosity heightens, the kid looks up incest online, gets the defintion I gave or a variation of it, doesn't know what sexual means, looks up the definition of sexual, ends up finding the meaning of sexual intercourse, and so forth.

Oddly enough, I do have a sister whose age is that of a 4th grader. A similar situation occurred where she wasn't satisfied with an answer I gave her, so she ended up researching the question online.

What about those who don't have siblings? Are they subject to hear this? The possibility of what I provided above is likely to happen, thus rendering the purpose to have more of a negative effect than a positive one. There are just some things you don't thoroughly teach kids about in school.

What I said about anal wasn't reflective of what I said above it in the same post. I was just shocked they would speak on it. Back when I was in 8th grade, I'm sure most of us knew what it was, but never spoke on it because it seemed taboo-esque at the time. I'm not opposed to the idea.

 

For anything in general, including schools, adapting to changes in society is paramount. Society has changed with regards to its views on sexuality. Kids are being exposed to sexual content more than ever before. Thus it definitely makes sense for the curriculum to be updated to reflect this. The question of how early should be more of an empirical one; at what age are children mature/capable enough to digest the information? The question on scope I also don't see as too contentious; I don't see how the objections of 'sacrilege' or 'brainwashing' are any more relevant than objecting to the teaching of vaginal sex for reasons of 'pre-marital sex'. It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with health risks; presumably these classes are for that reason, to warn kids of the risks involved with these actions.

If you regard the transmission of knowledge purely for purpose of education, and you label that as brainwashing then, then you undercut the actual definition of brainwashing. You might as well label a class on mathematics brainwashing. As for sacrilege, magic has no place in this discussion, since as you point out, AIDS is a life threatening issue. If a kid is going to be so treacherous as to act in a non-sacred manner, I'm sure people would prefer they do so safely, as opposed to pulling out with shit on their dick + AIDS!

 

It's true that introducing a topic that wasn't previous considered leads to curiosity, but it's also biologically proven that most humans have a natural aversion to incest. I don't think teaching the dangers invokes a strong enough curiosity to experiment. Certainly kids with the will and the way to google further explanation more mature than a 4th-grader-appropriate version might do so, but given that it's still a natural aversion, and 4th graders generally regard siblings in a purely platonic way, I think it's safe to drop a warning as early as this. Besides, like you say, the lesson will be distilled down to what is appropriate to tell a child as young as that, and I would like to believe the curriculum won't be a teacher sitting in the front with a banana and a bagel saying "if this is your sister, DON'T DO IT". I'm sure they'll think of a PC and safe way of explaining the dangers of incest.



Just a side note, I'm not sold on the part about teaching incest. As you say, it might be better to leave it to nature to develop that aversion. However, their expansion on the sex ed program seems to be a packaged deal, all or nothing. I would take all over nothing, the dangers of STDs from anal and oral are important enough to educate kids on



@malaka, yes, there's no sense to the extreme conservative or religious views on the matter. As usual, the religious community cherrypicks their favorite sins to judge, while blatantly ignoring ones equally as egregious.

 

Are you serious telling me there are 8th graders out there who think it's ok to fuck their brothers or sisters?

Honestly I think safe sex for most schools of orientation can be kinda comprehensively covered without going so graphically in-depth.

Wrap your dick, go over STDs or whatever, be careful ect.. but there is no reason to explain to 8th graders how to do anal sex safely..

 

That's similar to what I had taught to me when I was at school (UK), minus the incest topic. We'd have educational books/videos/talks etc and then have a time towards the end of the class where anyone could ask any question they wanted about sex. If you preferred to ask in private you could just chat to the teacher during certain lunch breaks or between classes.

At 4th grade discussing incest seems rather specific given their age and lack of a general understanding. That seems much better suited for 8th grade.

We covered most things and what wasn't covered was open for discussion and it seems like me and my classmates don't have any issues with being exposed to it at that age.

 

I have mixed feelings about it.
I believe it is important to teach about safe sex... but teaching anal sex to a bunch of 12/13-year-olds? I think it might be better to at least save it for highschool.

 

Sexual interests start somewhere. Just because no 8th grader has come up to you and said "I want to fuck my sibling" doesn't mean it hasn't happened, or more frequently, hasn't been thought about.

That's good if they had a very thorough coverage, but if the topic isn't first broached by someone, I don't think an 8th grader is going to ask about anal or oral sex on their own accord. It's too awkward of a stage in their development and mental maturity for them to be the ones to start the subject, especially if they're gay and scared of the adult reacting as kids their age do.

It's not teaching anal sex, it's teaching that STDs are also transmittable through anal. I think you're thinking that this change in curriculum means that there's a whole section devoted to anal/oral sex, with diagrams, and lesson plans, and work books. I believe it'll be more about keeping the curriculum the same, but adding in the words "anal/oral" to anywhere where it mentions "sex", just so it's clear that sex includes anal and oral where applicable.

For example, we all know HIV is transmitted through sex. At this point in America, sex ed only ever says "sex" or "vaginal sex", no mention of anal. What some may not know is that while HIV can definitely be transmitted through vaginal sex, it can also just as easily be passed through anal. Even less known perhaps is that it is significally, nigh impossible to transmit through oral sex because enzymes kill the virus before it reaches the bloodstream. However, if you have open sores on or in your mouth, it becomes possible. So simple alterations to the existing curriculum is all that's needed.

Where it says "HIV is transmitted through sex", I believe this change will be implemented in a way that changes the wording to "HIV can be transmitted through vaginal and anal sex, or through open sores that contaminated fluid comes into contact with."

it's not going to be "ok class, now it's buttsex time. Make sure you lube your penis EXTRA well" lol

 

Do you have an article or anything? I live in VA, but hadn't heard anything about this. You said the state so this is going to be state mandated for public schools? I was under the impression some curriculum (ex: sex-ed) was up to the county's.

Anyway, I think it's great for sex-ed topics to be expanded upon. We watched a video about dicks and vaginas in 4th & 5th grade, had an "abstinence" talk in like 7th grade, and then saw some pictures of STDS & a birthing video in high school. No actual education on the topics, just a "do not have sex and you will die."

 

https://www.facebook.com/cbnnews/videos/10155790969610393/

This was the video I saw about it first, but their facts are skewed, googled the real discussion, you find that 1) they're not starting as young as kindergarten, and 2) lifestyle choices (which include a curriculum on hetero, homo, and trans relationships) is an alternative class being offered, not mandatory sex ed

 

As a Virginia resident, the Anal and Oral is actually being taught in the 4th grade classrooms as well. I know some parents expressing outrage.

 

Ah okay, I see where you're coming from now. I wasn't really sure how/why they'd be teaching it haha. Also that last line nearly made me choke on my sandwich LOL.

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...down-on-explicit-sex-ed-after-parents-protest

In a turn of events, the same curriculum was released in Warsaw Poland, and protesters have successfully convinced the government to cancel the changes to their curriculum. This again sought to include a wider coverage for sex education, and also introduced orientation equality into their Family Life Education classes.

These protesters claim "As elsewhere in the world, education claiming to tackle discrimination is a smokescreen for introducing teaching programs that promote contraception, abortion, premature sexual intercourse, and homosexuality", and have convinced their minister that these changes to better educate the children on very real and very proliferate lifestyles are nothing more than gay agenda to convert more children to their perversion.

Sad day

 

Yeah, very few people of that age would. I had somewhat matured at the time and just saw it as educational and a serious topic as had a few others, but the vast majority of people (about 80-90%) were embarrassed about the topics we talked about and wouldn't ask questions.

I think part of it comes down to the person who teaches the subject to you. My teacher was a very relatable (late 30s/early 40s) and relaxed person who clearly wouldn't judge you if you asked a stupid question. Had we had someone else who simply taught the subject from a textbook (Typically older teachers who spent their life in the profession when that was the way things were taught) and wasn't as open and engaging about things, I doubt our class would have got anywhere near as much understanding on the topics we covered, let alone asking about things outside of the curriculum.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference between our countries that the UK is much more open to that kind of thing than the US? 8th grade is certainly a point in time that some people start engaging in sexual activity. I remember one of the kids next to me in one of my classes was already active with his long term girlfriend before we had sex ed at that age.

 

I don't believe awareness needs to be spread about the risks of disease in homosexual communities.

They won't be having children, if truly gay, and therefore the disease will not be continued in future generations.

If you're focusing on the children of the world, because they are the future of this world, then it would contradict your purpose when the homosexual won't continue to feed the newborn population.

 

Regardless of sexuality, are you saying that we should not inform others of diseases, but instead promote ignorance that could lead to the deaths of both homosexual and heterosexual human lives? WOW.